Quantcast
Channel: Comments for Climate Etc.
Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live

Comment on Quantifying the anthropogenic contribution to atmospheric CO2 by Salvatore del Prete


Comment on Modeling Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris by micro6500

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by cgs

0
0

Oh good grief, of course that’s my statement, not hers. Her statement is in my first post. My statement is a condensation of her’s for the purpose of emphasizing its thrust.

Perhaps it is a mountain from a mole hill, but my problem with her statement is that the casual reader will come away understanding that it is a proven fact that the only reason Lindzen’s theory was ‘discredited’ was because the ‘consensus’ felt threatened.

This has not been proven in this post and is an important point (to perhaps only me) because this is how myths are born and spread, and it feeds conspiracy mind-sets. It provides the folks who mainly frequent this blog one more reason to feel marginalized.

If this is indeed the reason the theory was ‘discredited’, then support that thesis with something solid. Such support, if it exists, would be eye opening to many.

Otherwise, consider that there may have been valid scientific reasons for being critical of this theory when it was first proposed.

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by PA

0
0

You might be right, but I don’t have a position on nuclear winter until we do a field test to gain empirical information.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by AK

0
0
<blockquote>But this conclusion does not necessarily follow from that text.</blockquote>Well, if you dig into <b>all</b> the material excerpted and linked, you can make a judgement call. In my judgement, the conclusion properly follows from the evidence.<blockquote>In fact, to me, it seems that this conclusion, while possible, has not been proven by any statement in the post.</blockquote>Depends on what you mean by "proven". Have you actually read and <b>understood</b> all the papers mentioned in Lindzen's <a href="https://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/lindzen-iris.pdf" rel="nofollow">slide show</a>? For every criticism he lists, there's a response. How good was the response? Did it properly answer the criticism? When somebody like Hansen, or Trenberth, uses the term "discredited", are they expressing an opinion of the relative merits of the various efforts at <b>science</b>? Or are they just spouting propaganda, in yet another of the many examples of dishonest rhetoric from proponents of socialist solutions to "global warming"? And when people who aren't prepared to judge the science parrot that term, what are they doing? This gets back to the subject of "scientific integrity", mentioned in an earlier post: when some "scientist" like Trenberth spouts propaganda like "discredited" in, say, an Op-Ed in the NYT, is he guilty of a "failure of integrity"?

Comment on Scientific integrity versus ideologically-fueled research by micro6500

0
0

Before they were banned, humans did a lot of above ground Nuclear bomb tests, while the effects might not show up in global temps, it would surely affect regional temps, if it effects temps at all.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by ferdberple

0
0

JC – The idea seemed counter intuitive to me.
=================
This simple concept has held back science more than any other factor. It was counter intuitive that all objects fall at the same speed. Intuition tells us that heavier objects fall faster.

Most problems exist because the “common sense” solution actually aggravates the problem. For example, if you feed the poor, you get more poor people. The solution to poverty is thus not charity, but education. Teaching the poor how to feed themselves.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by jim2

0
0

You and others have search engines at your disposal. Use them. Prove your point.


Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by AK

0
0
<blockquote>[...] my problem with her statement is that the casual reader will come away understanding that it is a proven fact that the only reason Lindzen’s theory was ‘discredited’ was because the ‘consensus’ felt threatened.</blockquote>I think it's pretty close to that. Lindzen's theory was <b>disputed</b>, but all the evidence goes to show that it was never <b>"discredited"</b>, people just started referring to it that way.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by curryja

0
0

The individuals who stated the iris hypothesis was ‘discredited’ had several other choices:
• ignore the paper
• state it was premature to draw any confident conclusions on this issue
• make efforts to understand it better, which might lead to refuting or supporting the hypothesis

There is not much in science that is ‘discredited’, unless a scientist committed research misconduct (which Lindzen most obviously did not).

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by curryja

0
0

Ian, we study the MJOs intensively, since they are the main source of predictability on subseaonal and even seasonal time scales. Simulating correctly the MJO is the holy grail of coupled atmosphere/ocean seasonal forecast models; models do a mixed-bag job at simulating the MJO. My colleagues Peter Webster and Violeta Toma are right now at a workshop at NCAR on the MJO.

Long-term climate models don’t do a good job of simulating the MJO; how this could feed back to cause problems with cloud/water vapor feedbacks is unknown but almost certainly of some significance.

I’m not sure how the MJO varies with natural climate regimes; perhaps someone has studied it (maybe I’ll take a look). In any event, I agree with you that natural climate variability (of which MJO is a key element) is a bigger factor in determining precip variability than AGW.

This is a good topic for a post; I will see if peter webster is interested in doing a guest post on this topic

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by JCH

0
0
<i>In his analysis, Dr. Schmidt, who studies climate for NASA, noted that the Lindzen-Choi paper was a valuable effort to attack a persistent question — how warm will a certain buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases make the world? <a href="http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/a-rebuttal-to-a-cool-climate-paper/?_r=0" rel="nofollow">But he criticized the many commentators who quickly inferred that it was a definitive refutation of decades of work pointing to a growing human contribution to climate change:</a> "Even if it now turns out that the analysis was not robust, it was not that the analysis was not worth trying, and the work being done to re-examine these questions is a useful contributions to the literature –- even if the conclusion is that this approach to the analysis is flawed. More generally, this episode underlines the danger in reading too much into single papers. For papers that appear to go against the mainstream (in either direction), the likelihood is that the conclusions will not stand up for long, but sometimes it takes a while for this to be clear. Research at the cutting edge – where you are pushing the limits of the data or the theory – is like that. If the answers were obvious, we wouldn’t need to do research. - Gavin Schmidt"

Comment on Modeling Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris by Steven Mosher

0
0

Rud

‘But it is highly suggestive that the adaptive iris exists. ”

hmm

What you can say is this. Assuming that they modelled the effect correctly, assuming that other models would show similar results, including an iris like effect reduces the model/observation discrepencies and so we can say that models that include iris like effects are more plausible than those that don’t.

You dont use models to make existential arguments. or rather if you do they are highly conditioned ones. I don’t think “suggestive” is a very illuminating description of the actual ontological issue at play

.

Comment on Modeling Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris by Steven Mosher

0
0

There is no educating Mike.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by Darryl Biehn

0
0

Cere-
Several years ago, I began a discourse with a person who gradually
gave more personal information.
Eventually, the communication turned to a land line with the assurance
that nothing would be made public. I wrote about it on this blog about two years ago
All I can say is this person is involved in modeling and that this person feels that if personal beliefs were told, there would be, it is felt, a subjection to humiliation and loss of income. That was communicated through tears.

I am slowly writing a book, my only such adventure.
This personal story
would be a prominent chapter, when and if I receive permission.


Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by cgs

0
0

When somebody like Hansen, or Trenberth, uses the term “discredited”, are they expressing an opinion of the relative merits of the various efforts at science? Or are they just spouting propaganda, in yet another of the many examples of dishonest rhetoric from proponents of socialist solutions to “global warming”?

That is something that someone like me (and I would suspect many others here), who does not work in climate science and is therefore an outsider, cannot properly judge. That is, if the term ‘discredited’ is being used among those climate scientists with the expertise to actually evaluate the work, then that term may indeed be accurate. But even if I read all the papers on the subject, I most likely won’t be able to form anything more than an educated layman’s opinion – no matter how smart I am.

To actually participate in a field in the fullest sense, is quite different from just being well-read in the field. I think this is where many people fool themselves.

Within the scientific field I studied of condensed matter physics, there are ideas that are discredited. One only need look at the history of development of superconductivity theory to find examples that some might label as such. But I think that very few people who are only well-read in the field would be able to properly judge or participate in a debate over whether that label was being used correctly or not. And some might well argue that, though they were in error, these theories were still helpful stepping stones to the correct theory, and therefore the word ‘discredited’ is too strong.

To know the difference, I am suggesting, can sometimes be subtle and can escape the outsider.

And of course all of this equally applies to the questions concerning whether Lindzen had properly answered his critics.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by curryja

0
0

This is a good statement by Gavin. Gavin is not in the class that has been claiming ‘discredited’, which is to Gavin’s credit.

But it doesn’t take much googling to find ‘discredited’ coming from the voices of several climate scientists. And the softer version ‘thou shalt not use the word ‘iris”, exemplified by trenberth’s complaint of Mauritzen/Stevens using the word ‘iris’ in the title of their paper.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by curryja

0
0

‘Discredited’, if you look at the definition of the word, is a word that should be used for research misconduct, not for a serious scientific paper that may or may not stand the test of time.

All hypotheses are provisional. Neither Lindzen’s critics or Lindzen himself did much to further all this in the early critiques. It has been the subsequent papers (referenced in MS and also in my blog post) that are lending support to the hypothesis.

Calling this hypothesis ‘discredited’ was propaganda attempting to discredit Lindzen, a prominent critic of the consensus on climate change.

Comment on Modeling Lindzen’s adaptive infrared iris by ristvan

0
0

Tony, I suspect it would be difficult to discern, because it acts rather rapidly and is a damper (negative feedback). It would act to lessen the changes you have observed.

Comment on Observational support for Lindzen’s iris hypothesis by JCH

0
0

In your own words, what were Lindzen’s initial claims about the Iris effect, and what is your word for the current standing of those initial claims?

Viewing all 147842 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images